"the abrupt mountain-passes and the deep valleys" which are so well described by the contemporary historian. They came to fight the battle of the Cross with a great multitude, and with the armor of human power: their journey was encompassed with defeat and death; their arrival at Attaleia was disastrous and disgraceful; and they sailed to Antioch a broken and dispirited army. But the Crusaders of the first century, the Apostles of Christ, though they too passed "through much tribulation," advanced from victory to victory. Their return to the place "whence they had been recommended to the grace of God for the work which they fulfilled," was triumphant and joyful, for the weapons of their warfare were "not carnal." The Lord Himself was their tower and their shield. 3 SMAN T MP CAES Coin of Antioch in Pisidia, William of Tyre. Acts xiv. 26. See 2 Cor. x. 4. See note, p. 159. CHAPTER VII Controversy in the Church.—Separation of Jews and Gentiles. - Difficulty in the Narrative. — Discontent at Jerusalem. - Intrigues of the Judaizers at Antioch. -Mission of Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem.- Divine Revelation to St. Paul. - Titus. - Private Conferences. - Public Meeting.-Speech of St. Peter. - Narrative of Barnabas and Paul. - Speech of St. James. The Decree. — Public Recognition of St. Paul's Mission to the Heathen. - St. John. Return to Antioch with Judas, Silas, and Mark. Reading of the Letter. - Weak Conduct of St. Peter at Antioch. He is rebuked by St. Paul.- Personal Appearance of the two Apostles. - Their Reconciliation. IF F, when we contrast the voyage of Paul and Barnabas across the bay of Attaleia with the voyage of those who sailed over the same waters in the same direction, eleven centuries later, our minds are powerfully drawn towards the pure age of early Christianity, when the power of faith made human weakness irresistibly strong; the same thoughts are not less forcibly presented to us, when we contrast the reception of the Crusaders at Antioch, with the reception of the Apostles in the same city. We are told by the chroniclers, that Raymond, "Prince of Antioch," waited with much expectation for the arrival of the French king; and that when he heard of his landing at Seleucia, he gathered together all the nobles and chief men of the people, and went out to meet him, and brought him into Antioch with much pomp and magnificence, showing him all reverence and homage, in the midst of a great assemblage of the clergy and people. All that St. Luke tells us of the reception of the Apostles after their victorious campaign, is, that they entered into the city and "gathered together the Church, and told them how God had worked with them, and how He had opened a door of faith to the Gentiles." Thus the kingdom of God came at the first "without observation," with the humble acknowledgment that all power is given from above, - and with a thankful recognition of our Father's merciful love to all mankind. - No age, however, of Christianity, not even the earliest, has been without its difficulties, controversies, and corruptions. The presence of Judas among the Apostles, and of Ananias and Sapphira among the first disciples, were proofs of the power which moral evil possesses to combine 1 Acts xiv. 27 8 Acts v. 2 Luke xvii. 20. itself with the holiest works. The misunderstanding of "the Grecians and Hebrews" in the days of Stephen,' the suspicion of the Apostles when Paul came from Damascus to Jerusalem, the secession of Mark at the beginning of the first missionary journey, were symptoms of the prejudice, ignorance, and infirmity, in the midst of which the Gospel was to win its way in the hearts of men. And the arrival of the Apostles at Antioch at the close of their journey was presently followed by a troubled controversy, which involved the most momentous consequences to all future ages of the Church; and led to that visit to Jerusalem which, next after his conversion, is perhaps the most important passage in St. Paul's life. We have seen (Ch. I.) that great numbers of Jews had long been dispersed beyond the limits of their own land, and were at this time distributed over every part of the Roman Empire. "Moses had of old time, in every city, them that preached him, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath day." In every considerable city, both of the East and West, were established some members of that mysterious people, who had a written Law, which they read and re-read, in the midst of the contempt of those who surrounded them, week by week, and year by year, who were bound everywhere by a secret link of affection to one City in the world, where alone their religious sacrifices could be offered,-whose whole life was utterly abhorrent from the temples and images which crowded the neighborhood of their Synagogues, and from the gay and licentious festivities of the Greek and Roman worship. In the same way it might be said that Plato and Aristotle, Zeno and Epicurus," "had in every city those that preached them." Side by side with the doctrines of Judaism, the speculations of Greek philosophers were not indeed read in connection with religious worship-but orally taught and publicly discussed in the schools. Hence the Jews, in their foreign settlements, were surrounded, not only by an idolatry which shocked all their deepest feelings, and by a shameless profligacy unforbidden by, and even associated with, that which the Gentiles called religion, but also by a proud and contemptuous philosophy that alienated the more educated classes of society to as great a distance as the unthinking multitude. Thus a strong line of demarcation between the Jews and Gentiles ran through the whole Roman Empire. Though their dwellings were often contiguous, they were separated from each other by deep-rooted feelings. of aversion and contempt. The "middle wall of partition" was built up by diligent hands on both sides. This mutual alienation existed, notwithstanding the vast number of proselytes, who were attracted to the Jewish doctrine and worship, and who, as we have already observed (Ch. I.), were silently preparing the way for the ultimate union of the two races. The breach was even widened, in many cases, in consequence of this work of proselytism: for those who went over to the Jewish camp, or hesitated on the neutral ground, were looked on with some suspicion by the Jews themselves, and thoroughly hated and despised by the Gentiles. It must be remembered that the separation of which we speak was both religious and social. The Jews had a divine Law, which sanctioned the principle, and enforced the practice, of national isolation. They could not easily believe that this Law, with which all the glorious passages of their history were associated, was meant only to endure for a limited period: and we cannot but sympathize in the difficulty they felt in accepting the notion of a cordial union with the uncircumcised, even after idolatry was abandoned and morality observed. And again, the peculiar character of the religion which isolated the Jews was such as to place insuperable obstacles in the way of social union with other men. Their ceremonial observances precluded the possibility of their eating with the Gentiles. The nearest parallel we can find to this barrier between the Jew and Gentile, is the institution of caste among the ancient populations of India, which presents itself to our politicians as a perplexing fact in the government of the presidencies, and to our missionaries. as the great obstacle to the progress of Christianity in the East. A Hindoo cannot eat with a Parsee, or a Mohammedan, and among the Hindoos themselves the meals of a Brahmin are polluted by the presence of a Pariah,—though they meet and have free intercourse in the ordinary transaction of business. So it was in the patriarchal age. It was “an abomination for the Egyptians to eat bread with the Hebrews." The same principle was divinely sanctioned for a time in the Mosaic Institutions. The Israelites, who lived among the Gentiles, met them freely in the places of public resort, buying and selling, conversing and disputing: but their families were separate: in the relations of domestic life, it was "unlawful," as St. Peter said to Cornelius, "for a man that was a Jew to keep company or come unto one of another nation." When St. Peter returned from the centurion at Cæsarea to his brotherChristians at Jerusalem, their great charge against him was that he had 1 See for instance the Memoir of the Rev. H. W. Fox (1850), pp. 123-125. A short statement of the strict regulations of the modern Jews, in their present dispersed state, con 993 "gone in to men uncircumcised, and had eaten with them: "1 and the weak compliance of which he was guilty, after the true principle of social unity had been publicly recognized, and which called forth the stern rebuke of his brother-apostle, was that, after eating with the Gentiles, he "withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision."2 How these two difficulties, which seem to forbid the formation of a united Church on earth, were ever to be overcome, - how the Jews and Gentiles were to be religiously united, without the enforced obligation of the whole Mosaic Law,-how they were to be socially united as equal brethren in the family of a common Father, the solution of this problem must in that day have appeared impossible. And without the direct intervention of Divine grace it would have been impossible. We now proceed to consider how that grace gave to the minds of the Apostles the wisdom, discretion, forbearance, and firmness which were required; and how St. Paul was used as the great instrument in accomplishing a work necessary to the very existence of the Christian Church. 3 We encounter here a difficulty, well known to all who have examined this subject, in combining into one continuous narrative the statements in the Epistle to the Galatians and in the Acts of the Apostles. In the latter book we are informed of five distinct journeys made by the Apostle to Jerusalem after the time of his conversion;-first, when he escaped from Damascus, and spent a fortnight with Peter; secondly, when he took the collection from Antioch with Barnabas in the time of the famine;' thirdly, on the occasion of the Council, which is now before us in the fifteenth chapter of the Acts; fourthly, in the interval between his second and third missionary journeys; and, fifthly, when the uproar was made in the Temple, and he was taken into the custody of the Roman garrison. In the Epistle to the Galatians, St. Paul speaks of two jour neys to Jerusalem, the first being "three years" after his conversion,' the second "fourteen years" later, when his own Apostleship was asserted and recognized in a public meeting of the other Apostles. Now, while we have no difficulty in stating, as we have done (p. 95), that the first journey of one account is the first journey of the other, theologians have been variously divided in opinion, as to whether the second journey of the Epistle must be identified with the second, third, or 1 Acts xi. 3. 2 Gal. ii. 12. 8 P. 95. P. 117. 6 Acts xviii. 22. We take the "fourteen " (Gal. ii. 1) to refer to the preceding journey, and not to the conversion. This question, as well as that of the reading "four," is discussed in Appendix I. See also the Chronological Table in Appendix III. 9 Gal. ii. 1-10. |